<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thank you Steven, everyone.<br>
<br>
More thoughts in hopes they help:<br>
<br>
I sense the key concern may be profit sharing which is Cameron's
point #1. I say this because LocationTech projects (JTS, uDig,
GeoGig, GeoTrellis, GeoMesa, etc.), or unaffiliated projects
(Leaflet, d3, Anvil, Cesium, etc.) and initiatives are usually
welcome to speak at FOSS4G and the audience is definitely
interested in them. <br>
<br>
There may be some tension between those that feel FOSS4G is a big
tent for any quality open source geospatial software, and those
that feel FOSS4G strictly == OSGeo. <br>
<br>
In my opinion, having been to all FOSS4G's since 2007 except one,
the spirit of FOSS4G has always clearly been a big tent. I also
think this *strengthens* the FOSS4G brand considerably, which is a
good thing for everyone.<br>
<br>
Speaking to Cameron's point #1, for FOSS4G NA 2015, we are
planning a fixed price per paid registration to contribute to
OSGeo. This is a simple paradigm that is very clear to understand
and helps ensure mutual success from a great event. I welcome
feedback on this idea.<br>
<br>
Speaking to Cameron's point #2. Based on what Darrell & others
before him have shared, it sounds like OSGeo is already somewhat
absentee in terms of "controlling" FOSS4G. I noticed there are
often fairly significant differences between FOSS4G proposals
& the actual results. Sometimes considerable differences like
a hike of 50% in registration prices for example. I think a clear
relationship with the Eclipse Foundation with clear terms and
strong continuity over time might enable more building upon each
event might be better.<br>
<br>
For #3, with LocationTech, Apache, Mozilla, & many others
doing open source geospatial, and other initiatives like Geomeetup
& Georabble and many others are thriving, I think OSGeo is one
of many organizations. This thought seems scary to a small group
of people who had bigger aspirations. This diversity doesn't
bother the vast majority of people in the community. I don't think
"there can be only one" is necessary for OSGeo's brand to thrive.
If the OSGeo board would like my help and advice with regards to
brand, I am happy to offer it.<br>
<br>
These are my thoughts and feelings. I welcome feedback and
criticism.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 05/09/14 05:16, Steven Feldman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B84B036A-F13B-488F-8AE7-BE9A8F763BD5@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Cameron makes some very good points which probably articulate the
concerns of many in the OSGeo community. On the other hand, Andrew
sets out well some of the concerns that people like me have
regarding the sustainability of FOSS4G global events and perhaps
the longer term vision and growth of OSGeo.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are many of us who are passionate about open source and
want to help to strengthen our community and reach out to an
ever growing opportunity. Surely we can find a way for OSGeo and
Eclipse to collaborate that furthers our shared objectives and
addresses any concerns?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can consider this an offer to help if wanted<br>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">______<br>
Steven<br>
<br>
</span>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 5 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Andrew Ross <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:andrew.ross@eclipse.org">andrew.ross@eclipse.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Cameron,<br>
<br>
I'm grateful for your comments & insights.<br>
<br>
After the vote was settled, multiple people approached me,
apologized, and explained they felt bullied to vote against
the D.C. bid. The fear you speak of is a powerful thing. I
would like to help address it if I can.<br>
<br>
Would do you suggest we do to address these concerns?<br>
<br>
<br>
To address your more general comments. There are good people
at the helm at LocationTech and they're interested in
building great technology & a vibrant ecosystem. The
group has consistently made decisions in the spirit of
collaboration and mutual benefit.<br>
<br>
Whether it's sharing Legal/IP analysis of OSGeo projects so
they can fix problems, sponsoring events, inviting OSGeo
projects to speak at events, using staff to help organize
FOSS4G-NA 2015, and more. These are tangible useful things
from LocationTech that benefited OSGeo & the wider
community.<br>
<br>
There is no us & them. We're all part of the same
community that transcends
organizations/projects/initiatives. Different areas of the
community take different approaches which are fine and
complementary. Who says it has to be a zero sum game?! What
if there's nothing to be scared of? Be prudent, but not
fearful.<br>
<br>
People who have good reason to know have been saying for
some time that the status quo with FOSS4G is not
sustainable. The issues are still as of yet unaddressed.
Many of the problems are things the Eclipse Foundation and
LocationTech can address. This isn't the only path forward,
but I sense one that is more open & collaborative has a
higher chance for mutual success. That's the spirit of open
source.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 04/09/14 18:51, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Andrew,<br>
The Washington FOSS4G proposal was very compelling,
however it was not selected. I can't speak for all the
committee who voted or for their reasons for selection,
however I will hazard some guesses, and aim to be frank to
help further dialogue.<br>
<br>
When LocationTech was founded there was concern from some
that OSGeo would become redundant due to LocationTech
attracting Open Source GIS mindshare away from OSGeo.
While LocationTech has attracted some mindshare, I think
many of the original concerns have not yet been realised,
and OSGeo still remains a very effective and efficiently
run organisation.<br>
<br>
Beyond the efficiency of OSGeo's do-ocrity approach to
empowering volunteer communities, I suspect part of the
reason OSGeo retains its brand recognition is the strong
association between OSGeo and FOSS4G conferences. These
FOSS4G conferences also provide OSGeo with a modest income
which cover's OSGeo's frugal expenses.<br>
<br>
I sense there is an unspoken concern within OSGeo voting
communities that giving control of FOSS4G conferences to
LocationTech has the potential to:<br>
1. Cut into OSGeo's current primary income source.<br>
2. Result in a loss of OSGeo's control of FOSS4G and
related activities.<br>
3. Erode OSGeo's brandname, marketing reach, and
mindshare.<br>
<br>
This is a different situation to OSGeo engaging a
Professional Conference Organisor (PCO) to run a FOSS4G
event, as the PCO is not competing for Open Source GIS
mindshare.<br>
<br>
If LocationTech wish to play a greater role in FOSS4G, and
attract OSGeo trust and community votes, I suggest
LocationTech put practical measures in place which focus
on these touch points.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>